This document summarizes several case studies of models of aggregation for water supply and sanitation provision across multiple countries. It describes the drivers and constraints of aggregation models in France, the Philippines, Hungary, Brazil, Italy, the Netherlands, and England and Wales. For each case, it provides details on the scale, scope, process of aggregation, ownership structure, exit policies, voting structures, and efforts towards harmonization.

1. Models of Aggregation for Water
Supply and Sanitation Provision
Capacity Building Module
Case Studies

2. Case studies
 France
 Philippines
 Hungary
 Brazil
 Italy
 The Netherlands
 England and Wales

3. Syndicates in France
Drivers Economies of Scale, regional cooperation and PSP in highly decentralized
environment (36,000 (often rural) municipalities)
Constraints Political legitimacy (direct taxation but indirect citizen representation)
Scale Normally 2- 5 municipalities of similar size (< 5,000 pop)
Scope Variable (pick and choose operating functions / often on WS and not sewerage)
Process Usually voluntary –central govt representative at local level (prefect) has right to
mandate membership
Model Assets: asset ownership remains with municipalities, syndicate has usage rights
Exit: allowed with permission of assembly if joining elsewhere
Voting: mixed (max 50% seats for larger municipalities; min one seat per
municipality)
Harmonization: working towards harmonized tariffs and services

4. Local Government Units, Philippines
Drivers Economies of scale and to lesser degree access to PSP, Access to government
loans, access to water
Constraints Conflicting legal interpretations and political disunity
Scale Varies widely (from Manilla with 10m pop to rural LGUs with 30,000 pop in 3
towns)
Scope Varies (several or all functions; sometimes also other services than WSS)
Process mainly voluntary – pace and route varies widely
Model Assets: in most cases transferred to aggregated entity
Exit: municipalities can exit / cannot be dispelled
Voting: by # of connections or assets (problematic at times)
Harmonization: uniform tariffs

5. Dunavarsany, Hungary
Drivers Political ( compliance with EU standards)
Constraints Lack of legislative clarity
Scale 8 municipalities, total 20,000 pop; one municipality much larger than other seven
Scope Water and wastewater; solid waste being considered
Process Voluntary with financial incentives from national government
Originally 4 member municipalities, 4 more joined later
Model Assets: no, not allowed by law
Exit: allowed - but on reimbursing loss of additional grant
Voting: based on contribution to budget
Harmonization: working towards uniform tariff

6. Dos Lagos, Brazil
Drivers Economies of scale and access to government finance and to lesser degree
access to PSP
Constraints Political disputes between local and state level
Scale 5 municipalities; total 310,000 pop
Scope Water supply and sanitation in some municipalities
Process Strong financial incentives from state government
Model Assets: remain with state (bulk water infra) and municipalities (distribution
network)
Exit: limited
Voting: loose association; no board in place
Harmonization: uniform tariffs

7. Consortium & Convenzione, Italy
Drivers Efficiency, political ( compliance with EU standards)
Constraints Local political resistance, vested private sector interests
Scale No standard size, 1- 377 municipalities, average total population is 640,000
Scope All functions integrated
Process Mandatory
Model Two models: Consortium (new public entity) and Convenzione (agreement
between existing entities)
Assets: municipalities keep existing assets; aggregated entity owns new assets
Voting: vary but mainly based on population
Harmonization: uniform tariffs (some exceptions)

8. Public water PLCs, The Netherlands
Drivers Economies of scale
Constraints Resistance to aggregation among existing utilities
Scale 1-40 municipalities; 200,000 – 1.600,000 connections
Scope Water supply
Process Initially voluntary, later mandatory threshold size of 100,000 pop
Model Assets: either owned by public water PLC of by member municipalities
Exit: no
Voting: based on population
harmonization: uniform tariffs

9. Regional Water Authorities, England and
Wales
Drivers Water resources, access to financing (for WW treatment)
Constraints Institutional design flaw (regulator and regulatee); lack of accountability
Scale More than 100,000 population
Scope water supply, wastewater and water resource management
Process Mandatory
Model Assets: owned by RWA
Exit: no
Voting: fixed key, including local and central government appointees (not all
municipalities represented)
Harmonization: uniform tariffs
Note: RWAs were divested to the private sector in 1989

10. Regional Water Authorities, England and
Wales
Drivers Water resources, access to financing (for WW treatment)
Constraints Institutional design flaw (regulator and regulatee); lack of accountability
Scale More than 100,000 population
Scope water supply, wastewater and water resource management
Process Mandatory
Model Assets: owned by RWA
Exit: no
Voting: fixed key, including local and central government appointees (not all
municipalities represented)
Harmonization: uniform tariffs
Note: RWAs were divested to the private sector in 1989